China is going to be the biggest emitter of carbon by 2010

[Logan13]

China is going to be the biggest emitter of carbon by 2010
The Australian
November 17, 2006

CHINA yesterday took offence at criticism of its record on greenhouse gas emissions, telling the delegation from Canberra that Australia's emissions would be higher if it had a population of 1.3billion.
In a session at the UN Climate Conference chaired by Australian Greenhouse Office director Howard Bamsey, a Chinese delegate reacted to Environment Minister Ian Campbell's assertion that China would emit more greenhouse gases than any other country by 2010.

As China spelt out its aim to reduce energy consumption by 2010, delegation representative Gao Guangsheng reportedly twice pointed out that China's population was 65 times the size of Australia's, according to Greenpeace Australia spokeswoman Catherine Fitzpatrick, an observer at the session.

Ms Fitzpatrick said the Chinese delegation met the Australian delegation following the circulation of the offending media release. She said no details had been released of their discussion.

"Australia's comments are the equivalent of the Australian Environment Minister sitting in a four-wheel-drive telling the Chinese Environment Minister to get off his bicycle to stop climate change," Ms Fitzpatrick said.

The Australian delegation's media release follows a report by the International Energy Agency - revealed in The Australian on November 2 - that said China was going to be the biggest emitter of carbon by 2010, 10 years earlier than previously thought.

China is a major trading partner of Australia and a member of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), which also includes India, Japan, South Korea and the US, working on non-market measures to address climate change.

Tensions between the AP6 partners came as the US rejected pleas by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and dismissed his charge that there was a "frightening lack of leadership" in fighting global warming.

It also came as the European Commission proposed that airline passengers on all flights arriving or departing from European Union airports pay up to $67 extra for a return ticket to cover the environmental damage caused by their flights. The proposal to address climate change is bound to infuriate US and Australian airlines, which would have to buy permits to cover their emissions on their European routes.

In Nairobi, plans to set new, tougher emissions targets for rich countries under the Kyoto Protocol after 2012 have stalled as industry signals growing concerns with the cost of some proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Negotiators could not agree on any plan to reach a global target nor a concrete timetable on whenthe commitment should be finalised.

Most developed countries are likely to exceed their current weaker pre-2012 Kyoto targets even with 10 years' planning and the introduction of a European emissions trading scheme last year. New negotiations for tougher commitments post-2012 were launched at the UN conference in Montreal last year to ensure that there was no emissions gap following the end of the Kyoto ratification period between 2008 and 2012.

The muted outcome on new targets by negotiators from EU and other developed countries comes despite strong rhetoric from environment ministers from signatory nations at the Nairobi conference. The UN conference also appears unlikely to find a solution to the emerging standoff between the developed and developing countries, which has stalled a mandatory review of the operation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Developing countries negotiating under the Group of 77 umbrella are concerned the review may open the door for them to be included in mandatory targets under a new post-2012 arrangement. This is despite the explicit reassurance of Finnish Environment Minister Jan-Erik Enestam that the EU had no intention of trying to draw developing countries into a future trading regime.

[Kärnfysikern]

Best comment in the whole article.

"Australia's comments are the equivalent of the Australian Environment Minister sitting in a four-wheel-drive telling the Chinese Environment Minister to get off his bicycle to stop climate change," Ms Fitzpatrick said.

Pointing the finger at China is a sad excuse by western countries to sneak away from there responsibilities. Sure china is going to be the biggest poluter, that doesnt mean can use that to justify our polution. We should put limits on china and india, but we should work even harder at home.

We need more Arnold's in the world

[Kärnfysikern]

we can not claim china isnt trying either

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4705

China’s investment in environmental protection is projected to grow faster than the county’s gross domestic product (GDP), according to Jun Ma, Greater China chief economist with Deutsche Bank. By 2010, “green” investments will account for 1.6 percent of Chinese GDP, or 1.9 trillion yuan (US$242 billion), growing at an average rate of 16 percent a year until then, China Securities Journal reports Ma as saying. GDP, in contrast, is expected to grow by 10.6 percent in 2006 and 9.5 percent in 2007, according to Deutsche Bank.

Four industries—wastewater treatment, air quality improvement, natural gas, and renewable energy—will be the main beneficiaries of the government’s burgeoning green investment program, with annual growth rates ranging from 20 to 35 percent over the next five years, according to Ma. Investments in water treatment, for example, grew by roughly 23 percent over the past three years, but are expected to increase by another 25–30 percent in the next five years. In the area of air quality improvement, the government has required that all facilities located in sulfur-dioxide and acid-rain control areas install sulfur removal devices. Investment growth in the area is expected to be between 20 and 25 percent annually through 2010.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4626

The Chinese government released its first “green” gross domestic product (GDP) report earlier this month, presenting an alternative to the nation’s current economic development path. The report, titled China Green National Accounting Study Report 2004, measures economic growth while also factoring in the environmental consequences of that growth, and is the world’s first national index of its kind.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004378.html

China has bold plans for confronting this crisis: green buildings, green cars, wind power, nanotechnology, mobile technologies, solar, even a green (or green-ish Olympics and new models of measuring economic growth to account for environmental costs. Whether these responses will actually take hold in an authoritarian and corrupt political culture is a different matter, of course, but a Green China may yet astound us all.

Since so much depends on building better cities, one of the more promising signs (though problems are still rife) is the rise of new green urban developments in Shanghai, Beijing, and Huangbaiyu. Our favorite is the Dongtan project on an island near Shanghai, billed as the world's first Eco-City, which will eventually house half a million people in green buildings powered by renewable energy. Dongtan is absolutely the best current model for bright green Chinese city planning.

Its far from enough and might just be publicity stunts. But they are not ignorant on the issue.

But never forget that we are the ones buying the stuff produced in filthy ways in china. We are the ones that can tell our companies that they have to put emphasis on buying from environmentaly friendly producers in asia even if it means we have to pay a cent more. If we europeans and americans refused to buy products manufactured under those conditions it would put a stop to asian polution.

We let them produce our cheap shit and we sell them our junk and waste and then we proceed to blame them for poluting. Thats stupidity at its finest.

Its like hiring a assassin and then blame the assassin for beeing a murderer.

[Tock]

There's no doubt in my mind that humans are going to booger up this planet, and make it uninhabitable. People have a long history of not doing the right thing until it's too late, and that's going to happen again.

Americans, in particular, are energy gluttons, and to make any headway to fixing the global warming problem, we really need to cut energy consumption by at least 50%. But how many people are willing to do that?

If I was going to live another 100 years, I'd relocate to Canada . . .

[Kärnfysikern]

There's no doubt in my mind that humans are going to booger up this planet, and make it uninhabitable. People have a long history of not doing the right thing until it's too late, and that's going to happen again.

Americans, in particular, are energy gluttons, and to make any headway to fixing the global warming problem, we really need to cut energy consumption by at least 50%. But how many people are willing to do that?

If I was going to live another 100 years, I'd relocate to Canada . . .

I think demanding cutting energy consumption is what scares most people away. To me its not as much a problem of energy consumption. It is a problem that we produce the energy by stupid means. If we had our energy production from renewables and nuclear then there would be nothing negative with having big energy consumption.

[Tock]

I think demanding cutting energy consumption is what scares most people away. To me its not as much a problem of energy consumption. It is a problem that we produce the energy by stupid means. If we had our energy production from renewables and nuclear then there would be nothing negative with having big energy consumption.

I dunno how much good it will do, but I changed my electricity provider here in Texas to the one that makes electricity by hydroelectric & wind power. They charge a little bit more per KWH (about one cent more), but I figure it's worth it to encourage them to set up more windmills . . .

[Logan13]

I dunno how much good it will do, but I changed my electricity provider here in Texas to the one that makes electricity by hydroelectric & wind power. They charge a little bit more per KWH (about one cent more), but I figure it's worth it to encourage them to set up more windmills . . .

Would you be in favor of them building a couple 60' windmills right next to your property?

[J.S.N.]

Would you be in favor of them building a couple 60' windmills right next to your property?

sure beats a dam, coal, or nuclear plant.

[Kärnfysikern]

I dunno how much good it will do, but I changed my electricity provider here in Texas to the one that makes electricity by hydroelectric & wind power. They charge a little bit more per KWH (about one cent more), but I figure it's worth it to encourage them to set up more windmills . . .

Yeah I agree. Winds is defenetly better than coal for the time beeing. But clean coal with underground CO2 storage seems very promising.

Would you be in favor of them building a couple 60' windmills right next to your property?

I acctualy think windmills look quite cool. But I dont know if they are noisy? I wouldnt mind living next to them. But I would rather live near a nuclear power plant offcourse they just look alot more sinister

In sweden right now windmills is the hot topic. They are trying to build windmills in alot of places where they will do harm. Especialy to the bird population. They are also going to build windmills near a radio astronomy site making the whole radio astronomy antenna worthless because the windmills is going to bounce radiowaves
Offcourse the astronomers doesnt get any say in the whole thing.

[Logan13]

Yeah I agree. Winds is defenetly better than coal for the time beeing. But clean coal with underground CO2 storage seems very promising.



I acctualy think windmills look quite cool. But I dont know if they are noisy? I wouldnt mind living next to them. But I would rather live near a nuclear power plant offcourse they just look alot more sinister

In sweden right now windmills is the hot topic. They are trying to build windmills in alot of places where they will do harm. Especialy to the bird population. They are also going to build windmills near a radio astronomy site making the whole radio astronomy antenna worthless because the windmills is going to bounce radiowaves
Offcourse the astronomers doesnt get any say in the whole thing.

We have about 600 windmills in Iowa, have had them for over 10 years. The largest ones are 240' tall. They are all in rural areas since the turbines are quite loud. Land owners make about $2000/year for every mill on their property, so it seems to be a win/win scenario.

[Logan13]

sure beats a dam, coal, or nuclear plant.

You would not want to live next to a windmill, turbines are very noisy.

[Phreak101]

We have about 600 windmills in Iowa, have had them for over 10 years. The largest ones are 240' tall. They are all in rural areas since the turbines are quite loud. Land owners make about $2000/year for every mill on their property, so it seems to be a win/win scenario.

Wow that's a lot of $$! Imagine owning some land with a couple of those suckers on it. You could make bank!

[J.S.N.]

You would not want to live next to a windmill, turbines are very noisy.

i wouldn't want to live next to anything that makes electricity (active solar would be the best i guess), but if you have to choose one, windmills are about as benign as they come. shit meng trains roll through my town all night and they're loud as hell and people learn to tune them out.

[spywizard]

wow, who didn't see that coming??

[Tock]

Would you be in favor of them building a couple 60' windmills right next to your property?

I wouldn't worry about it . . . fine by me . . .